[Merged]Brexit stuff (part 2)

[Bee]

I think this is a win against the Establishment and in favour of the British system of democracy.

The British system democracy will be tested with the Scottish independence referendum.

[shaunbhoy]

The British system democracy will be tested with the Scottish independence referendum.

We had that, they decided to stay a part of the UK. KUATB FFS!!

Scottish independence referendum - Results - BBC News

[Bee]

We had that, they decided to stay a part of the UK. KUATB FFS!!

Scottish independence referendum - Results - BBC News

OK. But they will remain in the EU?

[Old Greg]

The "Owen Smith".

The reality is that, were the general public to interpret any moves by Parliament as a direct challenge to their prior instructions, the result would be even more emphatic next time. That's how we Brits operate. Awkward buggers.

Best of five?

[Paddy]

The use of law and process to stop the will of the people was driven by a woman of fabulous wealth who poured scorn on people who voted for Brexit. The remainers may like this but essentially what this means is that our democracy is controlled by such laws and process in an Orwellian manner. Whereas what our laws and process should be doing is to work for the will of the people.

I believe that much of the case was done pro-bono. There was a number of Applicants for the case but only a few were nominated to be named.

The case was one on points of law and fact. What May tried to do was unlawful.

[Paddy]

You could be right, but I think it's more about HMG than Pannick. Having read the judgement, it seems to me that it was largely HMG's incompetence that lost this. Had they been willing to concede the point about A50 being reversible, I think the judgement could've gone the other way. You have to wonder whether they wanted to lose it. Afterall, it was about the necessity of triggering A50 in terms of the rights conveyed by the EC 1972 Act being withdrawn or abrogated. If you break the necessity, you break the argument that the rights are necessarily withdrawn. Also, the judges were pretty scathing about some of the AG's presentation. It was HMG's to lose, and I think they lost it.

I would partially agree with that. HMG's lawyers are grossly incompetent but the law and the facts in the case are straight forward. I surprised if they were really surprised, and May should have revised her stance and not gone to court.

[jamesbrown]

I would partially agree with that. HMG's lawyers are grossly incompetent but the law and the facts in the case are straight forward. I surprised if they were really surprised, and May should have revised her stance and not gone to court.

There were a number of political realities that required the case to be answered. First, the timeline. It's very difficult to stick within a reasonable timeframe for beginning the process (and hence ending the process) when pushing a conventional Act through both houses. This isn't emergency legislation. If she cannot finish well before the next GE, that creates a problem. Moreover, somewhat ironically, the longer it lasts, the greater the political uncertainty and consequent instability (Carney will almost certainly be leaving mid-process now, major spending decisions will be deferred etc.). Second, some of the general negative sentiment towards Parliament that inevitably results from this decision will stick to May. The longer the process takes, the greater the risk of a serious constitutional crisis and May will not come out unscathed, despite her elevated polling numbers at present. Third, the party management issue hasn't gone anywhere, and it becomes more difficult as time progresses. You have Gidiot and others from continuity remain on the backbenches who would like nothing more than to see May fail miserably.

I think there's a reasonable chance that the scope will be narrowed by the Supreme Court. The main practical impediment is a conventional Act. If it isn't narrowed, and continuity remain try to attach conditions to an otherwise simple Act, a GE will be unavoidable. She really wanted to wait until after A50 before triggering a GE, but that won't be possible. So the reasons for contesting the case are perfectly clear, but they will now be preparing a skeleton Act, ready for mid-January, after the Supreme Court ruling, with a GE as backup.

[DodgyAgent]

It's not a technicality. It's called the law. It was clear cut and I'm amazed that the government thought they could win.
It was a failure of Parliament to allow a referendum that meant anything. So now Parliament has to fix the mess it made.

It is the law

[NotAllThere]

What will happen in practice is that any sitting MP that stands for re-election at the next GE (i.e. most of them!) will have their voting choice on Brexit trumpeted from the rooftops.

Not just the sitting MP, but the other candidates.

They will then, on a constituency basis, be subject to the backlash that will ensue from their local Electorate.

Just because you're upset and emotional about it doesn't mean that everyone is. Most people will vote as they've ever done, even if their usual candidate didn't vote the way they did in the referendum. Those who feel very strongly about the issue either way may be motivated to vote accordingly, but given the narrow margin of the referendum win, I doubt overall it will make much difference.

Dominic Cummings, the campaign director of Vote Leave, urged Brexit supporters to accept the judgment because “at heart it is reasonable”. He added that they should take a “deep breath and stick to important principles of how a serious country works” rather than “confused whining”.

Take heart - the supreme court might overturn the lower court, and even if it doesn't the MPs might actually vote as you'd like.

But yeah -do stop the confused whining.

[milanbenes]

here here

I for one, don't understand why the Brexiters are so upset, if the country wants a Brexit there'll be a Brexit, so let the process run and stop whining

Milan.